Global warming consensus ignored.

[jbg]

Maybe I misinterpreted jbg's point, but my interpretation was that pointing out how scientists once believed in global cooling somehow discredits scientists from now saying that it is warming. I have seen that exact same argument on other threads, and I assumed that was jbg's point (since he/she didn't make any mention of "scientific consensus", or any other explanation for bringing it up). I shouldn't have made that assumption, but I'll him him/her explain the purpose before I reply further.

BTW: What did I say that was so rude?

You got me right. My point is that these "scientists" are bringing their political bent for a command and control economy into the picture, by conjuring doomsday scenarios and then proposing highly bureaucratic and likely ineffective "solutions" to those problems.

The mischievous agenda of these "scientists" became obvious with the Club of Rome's belief in "limits of growth". If food scarcity couldn't be used as an argument to restrict Western prosperity, first global cooling, now global warming does the job.

What next? Global chickenpox?

[BHS]

It is the most pressing issue we face, yes.

I never indicated it is "the end of the world".

It is a common rightwing tactic of deceit to try and portray anyone speaking about the seriousness of global warming as an over-the-top alarmist. Don't employ it against me, please.

So, global warming is a more pressing threat than even nuclear annihilation, but it doesn't spell the end of the world. Okay, just wanted to be clear on your particular worldview. Because their are plenty of people from the global warming crowd who are certain that the humanity (and in many cases the whole planet) is doomed, so much so that the word "misanthropy" is starting to pop up in eco-infidel circles.

Maybe I misinterpreted jbg's point, but my interpretation was that pointing out how scientists once believed in global cooling somehow discredits scientists from now saying that it is warming. I have seen that exact same argument on other threads, and I assumed that was jbg's point (since he/she didn't make any mention of "scientific consensus", or any other explanation for bringing it up). I shouldn't have made that assumption, but I'll him him/her explain the purpose before I reply further.

BTW: What did I say that was so rude?

*snip*

You got me right. My point is that these "scientists" are bringing their political bent for a command and control economy into the picture, by conjuring doomsday scenarios and then proposing highly bureaucratic and likely ineffective "solutions" to those problems.

The mischievous agenda of these "scientists" became obvious with the Club of Rome's belief in "limits of growth". If food scarcity couldn't be used as an argument to restrict Western prosperity, first global cooling, now global warming does the job.

What next? Global chickenpox?

My apologies gc. My defence of jbg was unwarranted, though I still stand by the statements I made with regard to my own views. jbg brings up an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

[jbg]

My apologies gc. My defence of jbg was unwarranted, though I still stand by the statements I made with regard to my own views. jbg brings up an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

My point is that I doubt that people like Maurice Strong, Demairis, and the various rather wealthy power brokers supporting Kyoto are bleeding heart environmentalists who care about Mother Earth. I see a much more cynical agenda, while the guitar-strummers who think they're supporting clean air and wholesomeness have no idea what's really going on.

[gc1765]

My apologies gc. My defence of jbg was unwarranted, though I still stand by the statements I made with regard to my own views. jbg brings up an interesting point that I hadn't considered.

No worries, and I apoligize if I was rude in my previous posts. In response to your argument about arriving at a conclusion based on scientific consensus, perhaps you could provide me with a link proving there was indeed widespread consensus on global cooling in the 70's. Now I admit I am much too young to remember first hand, however it seems that there were only a handful of scientists (and one newsweek article) who believed global cooling was a problem. I don't think there was the same kind of consensus that there is today about global warming.

To jbg:

I agree that these proposed 'futuristic' solutions will probably not be effective. If scientists want to combat global warming, any efforts should be aimed at the root of the problem (ie greenhouse gases) not some futuristic ways of dealing with it. However, it seems that the scientists who are proposing these 'futuristic' ideas are in the minority. Most scientists would probably agree that if we want to fight global warming, efforts should be focused on reducing greenhouse gases, not some new technologies to fight it. I can't help but remember what happened when they tried to get rid of cane beetles in australia using cane toads and what a disaster that was. If people had tried using carbon on ice to warm the planet in the 70's I could only imagine a similar scenario would occur, where what seemed like a good idea at the time would probably result in disaster. At least if we reduce CO2 emissions, the worst that could happen is that we save some oil for future generations. I don't think scientists have any political agenda. Perhaps I am a bit biased as I am somewhat of a scientist myself, however I think most scientists are dedicated only to finding the truth. If you want to put the blame on anyone, why not blame politicians? They are the ones who have done nothing but propose ineffective solutions (ie kyoto) to please the masses.

[BHS]

For what it's worth, here' the Wikipedia entry on global cooling.

[BHS]

The horrors of global warming revealed: red salmon in Alaska outpacing maximum return rates.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

For what it's worth,

"There's battle lines being drawn, Nobody's right if everybody's wrong".

From your link, Paul Ehrlich says it best...

At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump.

Further down in the link,

Thirty years later, the concern that the cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, can now be observed to have been wrong. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown the cooling concerns of 1975 to have been simplistic and not borne out.

Generally, predictions in the long term must come from extrapolation, which can lead to silly conclusions if taken out of context. For example, who would believe the scientist who said, "From January to June, we have seeen an average increase in the temperature of Canada rise at a rate of 10 degrees per month. By December, we will be near the boiling point!"

Things are cyclical, usually, and usually nature does just fine through these cycles, withouth the help of Mankind. Like the reversing of the polarity of the earth, for which evidence has been seen in the history of man's presence. from...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html

Most of us like stability in our lives, especially when it comes to planet-wide phenomena, such as the daily appearance of the sun or the periodic change of season. So it can be unsettling to learn of global phenomena that are inherently unstable, unpredictable. Such is the case with the Earth's magnetic field. Every so often, our planet's magnetic poles reverse polarity (see When Compasses Point South). Compass needles have always pointed north; in a reversal, they would point south.

You could perhaps take comfort in the knowledge that these reversals happen infrequently—on average every 250,000 years—but maybe not when you consider that it's been over 700,000 years since the last reversal, and the next one may be currently underway.

When we change factors in the model, predictions become even more difficult. Logic should still be applied, though.

[jbg]

Dear BHS,

For what it's worth,

"There's battle lines being drawn, Nobody's right if everybody's wrong".

"Young people speaking their minds, are getting so much resistance from behind, it's time we stopped, hey, what's that sound, everybody look what's goin' round.

From your link, Paul Ehrlich says it best...

At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump.

He was thoroughly discredited in a famous bet with Julian Simon (link). He was basically a crackpot whose reasoning rose to the level of someone who, noticing increase in daylight from January 1 to June 1, starts dismantling all of his indoor lighting.